Posted by seldomseen on January 5, 2008, at 20:33:38
In reply to Re: STAR*D confirmed what patients already knew, posted by linkadge on January 5, 2008, at 19:55:03
I agree with you that a major concern of the STAR*D study is that the subject might have simply gotten better on their own without intervention. It's true in any study really.
However, there is a difference between an effictive drug and an efficacious one.
Placebos can be quite effective.
Perhaps one problem with the STAR*D design is that it was not an efficacy trial. It was an effectiveness trial. It showed that these drugs and this protocol can be effective in treatment resistant depression. Now whether it is an efficacious protocol? Now that's a different story.
There is plenty of evidence out there that drugs are efficacious against depression, and there is plenty of evidence out there suggesting that they aren't efficacious at all.
Does it matter? Yes and no.No study no matter how well designed can predict what a drug will do in an individual person. No drug is perfectly efficacious and no drug is 100% effective.
I had my response to the SSRI's, someone else might not and that's what it comes down to IMO.
I think what matters is how the docs present these drugs to us. I think it is irresponsible for a physician to say - hey take this pill it's going to cure you and there's going to be no side effects.
If we chose to, we consent to take these drugs and throw our ball on the roullete wheel and see if we are lucky enough to get a winner. I think that's the take home message.
It's the same whether it is a blood pressure med, or an anti-psychotic.
I don't think it is a religion, or some conspiracy to keep these drugs in play.
poster:seldomseen
thread:804126
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080105/msgs/804539.html